Black Ethics = / = Emotional ?

[SGF]

What do you guys make of this?:

It is very important not to confuse Emotion with Black Ethics in socionics. Although the expression “ethics of emotions” used by many socionists is the word “emotion”, black ethics does not describe the emotional state of a person, but only determines the form of a person's perception of information. Black Ethics characterizes how we express and perceive reactions, not how we feel.

Source: https://bestsocionics.com/psychosophy/first-emotion/

I found this interesting.. does this mean being an ethical type does not necessarily imply being emotional? It kind of makes sense why some people who seem like logical types get classified as feelers in socionics.

upon further reading.. thats weird, nothing about being emotional themselves. I have seen ppl who thought they were SLE get typed EIE-N before.. is this why?

CHE - mental, boot, template, value

EIE constantly keeps in mind the specific behavioral manifestations of the people around - speech features, gestures, facial expressions, words, and other reactions. In conversation, he colorfully describes them, often uses direct speech.

It is very important for this type to see that people behave exactly the way they think is right. He feels stressed if someone breaks the rules of etiquette or does something unworthy, in his opinion. Because of this, he can easily aggravate relations or even break them off.

Hamlet has clear, normative ideas about how to behave. From them, he repels when interacting with people and building relationships. His ideas about etiquette, rules of conduct may not coincide with generally accepted ones, but they will always be ordered and put on shelves.

Information about what actions people do, what reactions they express, is very interesting for this type. He wants to talk about it, consume it, even if it is not necessary for life. Such information does not cause internal resistance.

BE - vital, unloading, situational, non-value

Hamlet has difficulty in vocalizing and revealing abstract ethical concepts such as friendship, love, morality, good, and evil. It is easier for him to explain what is good and what is bad, on concrete actions, discussing how should and how not to act. He also perceives information about people's relationships unconsciously, paying more attention to how people communicate with each other, what words they say to each other, and so on.

EIE does not strive for stability of relations, it tends to decrease, then increase the distance in order to control the behavior of other people in this way. Changes in relationships do not cause stress in him, on the contrary, it is associated with something interesting, with leisure.

Hamlet does not have a clear idea of ​​how to relate to what, how to evaluate certain phenomena. His own moral standards and values ​​are vague, vague, and often contrary to generally accepted ones, which can shock other people.

Information about the qualities of people, about which values ​​and attitude to life are correct and which are not, causes internal resistance in this type. He does not want to discuss this information and consume it beyond what is necessary.

EDIT: I read through other descriptions and yeah.. its all about a preference for observing information relating to this aspect (black ethics) in other people and taking action to "manipulate" it. e_e so not about being emotionally expressive.. interesting.

[Aramas]

I think of the difference as follows....

Fe - electric "yang" feeling
Fi - magnetic "yin" feeling

Both can influence. Just differently.

[Aramas]

it sounds like they are just distinguishing between feeling emotions and Fe on a strict definitional level. But I would imagine ethical types probably find it easier to be in touch with their feelings, relatively speaking, and so in that sense they may be more "emotional"

Jung used the term "feeling" instead of ethics, and I feel that this term is more accurate. Fe DS can be really emotive. I think it's more that feelers have more control and precision.

Feeling being in the unconscious mind means that they're also more subject to feelings rather than the master of their feelings.

Socionics is inherently a logical construction, and trying to define feeling in terms of logic will always to some degree miss what feeling is. OP is right that feeling can be used to influence and control other people. But I think feelers in general also tend to be more empathetic. That's not to say that they aren't capable of hurting people. But they tend to more readily adapt themselves to others too.

[Exodus]

"Black ethics does not describe the emotional state of a person, but only determines the form of a person's perception of information. Black Ethics characterizes how we express and perceive reactions, not how we feel."

This is a very brief description so I have to fill in some blanks to understand what they mean.

I would say fundamentally, yes, Fe is about expression, not emotional states. And not only emotional expression but the communication of information of any kind. I realize this may be controversial but it is the best definition I have found, for numerous reasons.

That isn't to say that it isn't also about emotional states. Clearly Fe leading types are concerned with how people are feeling and affecting their states via their expression. It's about the interaction between the expresser (the "performer") and those receiving the expression (the "audience"), or the individual and the group. But we must distinguish between what is fundamental (essential) and what is derived (accidental).

"only determines the form of a person's perception of information"

This is a common refrain in Russian texts, yet it seems to contradict the next sentence - expression is not a perception, it's an action. Action is absolutely fundamental to information metabolism, I cannot emphasize this enough.

[Exodus]

Their goal with saying this is to draw a line between socionics and psychosophy. Isn't it strange how psychosophy has so many terms in common with socionics? Why would that be? There are likely semantic differences but I find they are somewhat exaggerated.

[SGF]

Jung used the term "feeling" instead of ethics, and I feel that this term is more accurate. Fe DS can be really emotive. I think it's more that feelers have more control and precision.

Feeling being in the unconscious mind means that they're also more subject to feelings rather than the master of their feelings.

Socionics is inherently a logical construction, and trying to define feeling in terms of logic will always to some degree miss what feeling is. OP is right that feeling can be used to influence and control other people. But I think feelers in general also tend to be more empathetic. That's not to say that they aren't capable of hurting people. But they tend to more readily adapt themselves to others too.

from reading about ppl with Fe, I got the impression that they in order to achieve a certain reaction from others around them would act out what is required of them in order to manipulate (sounds bad but it doesn't have to be) a person or the crowd into the desired reaction.. but they themselves don't need to feel anything, its just an act to get the desired result. Now.. they CAN feel it and express that, but its not necessary. So I'm not saying they don't have feelings, just that Fe isn't about that.

Its more like they can read other people or an entire crowd of people in this way (they understand and enjoy Fe information) and know exactly what to say and do to lets say rile them up, make people sad or induce the desired mood-state. This is the kind of person who knows exactly how to push other people's buttons or how to work a crowd.

A lot of ppl considered EIE for example, such as Obama, MLK, Gitler were/are very good at this by default aka its their nature. It seems to be what makes them black ethics ego types. To a certain extent IF I really focus and train I can probably do something relatively close as I also naturally read people like this.. I'm just insecure about the application-phase and it isn't something that comes naturally to me and I prefer to be in the background not dealing with ppl. One to one however I notice I do something similar.. its a kind of chameleonic thing based on reading the other person and pushing just the right buttons to manipulate them into the desired mood-state.

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, as Jung stated it should be like this. Fe is much better at working with it. For instance we can usually see logical people being tormented by their emotions (usually Te types).

[SGF]

I think you have a point here. Maybe Fi types are more obviously feelers, but Fe types can be easily perceived as thinkers sometimes. I said that Fi types are obviously feelers because of this tendency of theirs to share inner emotions to connect with others.

yeah, that is an attempt to create a relationship based on commonality / shared experience, so Fi. Even here tho feelings are more of a tool for Fi than what Fi is as a information element. They may come hand in hand but Fi isn't emotions either.

[The Reality Denialist]

Fe leading types are not ignoring Fi for no reason.



Ime I'm way more emotional than Fe types, and more so compared to Fe egos. It's because there is a need to connect with others and realize personal sentiments but I'm dumb at it.
Specially Alpha SFs as they tend to take emotions too lightly. Actually I don't even think they have too much of them in the first place. Their actions and behavior always seem to be inline with what the current mood is, at least that's how I perceive it.

My ESE brother had a diary before, there's nothing there that could amount to poetry (you know what I mean).

I think you have a point here. Maybe Fi types are more obviously feelers, but Fe types can be easily perceived as thinkers sometimes. I said that Fi types are obviously feelers because of this tendency of theirs to share inner emotions to connect with others.

- sociotype.com

I usually see it as opposite. I see it as practical handholding because they can not connect links that could generate something you live for and not drop dead. ILI few days ago viewed life as a sentence that he has to carry and so on. Seems like a good way to identify Fi valuer.

[The Reality Denialist]

It is just that Fe is like colorful life while Fi dunno... I need and want and connect but I can't squeeze. That said I kind of squeeze very pointy logical thingys.

[Grendel]

Vage, Vague, n' Vagguey

[Nobody]

Vage, Vague, n' Vagguey

Black is not black; you must understand. Do you not consider, you can not escape?

[RBRS]

At a basic level, black ethics is about nothing more and nothing less than the ability to perceive and generate energetic/emotional implications on objects (taking the object as anything, for example a painting, a car, a piece of architecture or the facial emotional expression of a person).
If you go deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of Russian socionism, you will find that for a long time socionics has been distancing itself from superficial personality. I assume this is because firstly, socionics is sometimes presented and studied at academic levels in eastern europe, and secondly, more individuals and companies of eastern europe hire socionics practitioners, which gives more room for comparison, testing the theory agains't reality and practical evidence, and investigation.

In a lot of westerners minds, socionics is a more serious version of the MBTI, this is especially evident in their exaggerated and unrealistic over-behavioralist interpretation. Add to that that half of the users of this forum are as dense as tubercles (some diagnose sociotypes depending on the model of car the diagnosed use, others by haircut and others link Jungian typology with astrology in a serious way... some do all of that at once) and you have all the answers that you can get to the question.

[ouronis]

Depends on who you talk to, but in system socionics-type views, this is how I've always read it. It's where the "information" part of information aspect comes in.

[mfckrz]

I found this interesting.. does this mean being an ethical type does not necessarily imply being emotional? It kind of makes sense why some people who seem like logical types get classified as feelers in socionics.

upon further reading.. thats weird, nothing about being emotional themselves. I have seen ppl who thought they were SLE get typed EIE-N before.. is this why?

I'd say emotions are general to everyone, but the extent to which emotion is intensively or extensively operationalized differs between types.

As a rule of course, Fe is going to be more extensive—i.e. more visibly emotive. Whereas an Fi base might be intensively moody yet remain outwardly stoic as if nothing is occurring within.

EIE tends to instrumentalize emotion and apply it tactically towards desired ends. If you get them to open up and explain their mentations to you, they'll often describe themselves as being amorally detached from what they're doing. Which might seem insincere—particularly to Fi-valuing types—but usually isn't. They're just pragmatic about emotional cause-effect akin to how Te is re: material cause-effect.

[Sol]

What do you guys make of this?

About types is better to read Jung and Augustunavichiute. All what is useful for a typing fits there still.
What contradicts to types basics alike "Fe is not about feelings" mb ignored.

F is about emotions.
Fe is about objective emotional state (general energy level) and objective emotional value (for anyone).
Fi is about subjective emotional state (pleasure/suffering) and subjective/personal emotional relation/value (perception of concrete human).

For example:
Fe - apples are good.
Fi - I like apples.
Fe - he's feeling badly.
Fi - he's upset by something.

Emotions is an energy for actions, a side of a motivation.

> its all about a preference for observing information relating to this aspect (black ethics) in other people and taking action to "manipulate" it. so not about being emotionally expressive

Jung type is about dominating contents in a consciousness. Externally seen behavior (including nonverbal) is secondary to what happens in the consciousness, indeed. But it's doubtful to have F type and be lesser than average emotionally expressive. Not what will be for very majority of people with F type, at least. For rare cases, it's possibly to assume existence of external factors which may significantly reduce nonverbal behavior related to F types as meds, special training, etc.
F types (Fe and Fi) have dominating in the consciousness the info about emotions, they are mostly concentrated on feelings and are mostly motivated by them too. Concentrated on emotions in general, own and of other people. Actions to influence on emotions and how emotions influece on actions are interesting for them too. If you see something and think about it, hence you think how to deal with it.
If you are concentrated on own emotions much, so you'll express them more too. And with the understanding how to influence on own and other people by emotions, you'll use them more also. So F types are seen as emotional people, more than average emotionally expressive.

When you see strange theory views as F is not about emotionality or that F is only about emotions of other people but not your own or that to influence on emotions of other people own emotional expressiveness is not main (or not important) way - the common the task of such nonsense is to rationalize typing mistakes which are often.
F types are significantly more emotional (including in externally seen behavior) than T types and than people in average level. Such is for the majority of people, at least. External factors besides Jung types may influence on types related behavior too, sometimes influence strongly.

-

I know a girl which thinks herself as non-emotional or emotionally cold. While in my perception she's emotional human. She also has more interest to concrete people as persons and their relations. And worse in thinking than could according to study results. I typed her to F type. About a half of forum's noobs typed her to T type after she became inclined to T. So some people may perceive her as cold too. May be when compare with themselves or when value other kind of F or else.
This case mb related to external factors which predispose her to try supress external emotional expression or emotions in general. So her F type mb lesser noticed. She may suppress emotions when those are bad, for example. While bad emotions she may to have higher than average from different problems, to be emotionally tender. Though for me she's emotional with all that "coldness" and suppressions. I may compare with myself in how I think and talk, how I'm more limited in nonverbal expressiveness. She's significantly different in emotionality which can be seen externally. Different enough so I type her as F type.

[Alomoes]

Well, there's two kinds of people, those who generally get angry, and those who generally don't. Ironically, EIE has better control of themselves than LSI or SLE, and it has to do with lack of Fi, which is emotional control. EIE can act crazy, but is generally stolid from my understanding. Especially if EIE is Bowie, which honestly is unlikely, but that's what I was told.

But yeah, all people get angry. It's just how and why. I'm incredibly averse to following my passions, so it happens in the heat of the moment, and I'm likely to be sad for 30 minutes first before I decide it is justifiable to get angry. I'll figure it out eventually.

But yeah, I generally don't get angry so I'm not used to it. INTP. This one guy I know seems to drop at a pin. He generally does get angry. Probably ESTp. This third guy gets blind unconcious rage, ironically, he is not used to being angry, and it's like a switch for him, and he loses control. Probably ISFj

I haven't seen LII get angry. I have seen ESFp interpret the grumbles of LII as rage, but I have not seen objective anger.

SEE himself actively gets pissy over small stupid things, which I or someone else then fixes. Works okay.

As such, my conclusion is if it was related to something, probably Se or Ti. Note that anger does not mean violence, it just means anger, which is a method of acting out on frustration. Anger is a surface emotion, and if you treat the cause at the root, no anger. Learned that from a psych place.

[RBRS]

About types is better to read Jung and Augustunavichiute. All what is useful for a typing fits there still.
What contradicts to types basics alike "Fe is not about feelings" mb ignored.

F is about emotions.
Fe is about objective emotional state (general energy level) and objective emotional value (for anyone).
Fi is about subjective emotional state (pleasure/suffering) and subjective/personal emotional relation/value (perception of concrete human).

For example:
Fe - apples are good.
Fi - I like apples.
Fe - he's feeling badly.
Fi - he's upset by something.

Emotions is an energy for actions, a side of a motivation.

> its all about a preference for observing information relating to this aspect (black ethics) in other people and taking action to "manipulate" it. so not about being emotionally expressive

Jung type is about dominating contents in a consciousness. Externally seen behavior (including nonverbal) is secondary to what happens in the consciousness, indeed. But it's doubtful to have F type and be lesser than average emotionally expressive. Not what will be for very majority of people with F type, at least. For rare cases, it's possibly to assume existence of external factors which may significantly reduce nonverbal behavior related to F types as meds, special training, etc.
F types (Fe and Fi) have dominating in the consciousness the info about emotions, they are mostly concentrated on feelings and are mostly motivated by them too. Concentrated on emotions in general, own and of other people. Actions to influence on emotions and how emotions influece on actions are interesting for them too. If you see something and think about it, hence you think how to deal with it.
If you are concentrated on own emotions much, so you'll express them more too. And with the understanding how to influence on own and other people by emotions, you'll use them more also. So F types are seen as emotional people, more than average emotionally expressive.

When you see strange theory views as F is not about emotionality or that F is only about emotions of other people but not your own or that to influence on emotions of other people own emotional expressiveness is not main (or not important) way - the common the task of such nonsense is to rationalize typing mistakes which are often.
F types are significantly more emotional (including in externally seen behavior) than T types and than people in average level. Such is for the majority of people, at least. External factors besides Jung types may influence on types related behavior too, sometimes influence strongly.

-

I know a girl which thinks herself as non-emotional or emotionally cold. While in my perception she's emotional human. She also has more interest to concrete people as persons and their relations. And worse in thinking than could according to study results. I typed her to F type. About a half of forum's noobs typed her to T type after she became inclined to T. So some people may perceive her as cold too. May be when compare with themselves or when value other kind of F or else.
This case mb related to external factors which predispose her to try supress external emotional expression or emotions in general. So her F type mb lesser noticed. She may suppress emotions when those are bad, for example. While bad emotions she may to have higher than average from different problems, to be emotionally tender. Though for me she's emotional with all that "coldness" and suppressions. I may compare with myself in how I think and talk, how I'm more limited in nonverbal expressiveness. She's significantly different in emotionality which can be seen externally. Different enough so I type her as F type.

The norm in human societies is alterations and external conditions that give way to unnatural behaviors that can be associated with certain information elements from culture, family, small community, etc. Following that line of thought, the average person is in a certain shape astray from his original natural inclinations and presents culturally or socially (As from family) imprinted behaviors that could be associated by socionist as belonging to certain types or IMs. If that wasn't enough undiagnosed or diagnosed mental alterations usually have a huge impact on behavior. It is estimated that at least 10% of the world's population has a mental disorder, and 20% of children and teenagers also do.
Assuming superficial type behaviors to be specifically indicative of definite typings is evidently not the best way towards correct diagnosis, thus the best option is to not associate behavioral traits or preferences with sociotypes, and treat such things as separate.

[SGF]

Well, there's two kinds of people, those who generally get angry, and those who generally don't. Ironically, EIE has better control of themselves than LSI or SLE, and it has to do with lack of Fi, which is emotional control. EIE can act crazy, but is generally stolid from my understanding. Especially if EIE is Bowie, which honestly is unlikely, but that's what I was told.

But yeah, all people get angry. It's just how and why. I'm incredibly averse to following my passions, so it happens in the heat of the moment, and I'm likely to be sad for 30 minutes first before I decide it is justifiable to get angry. I'll figure it out eventually.

But yeah, I generally don't get angry so I'm not used to it. INTP. This one guy I know seems to drop at a pin. He generally does get angry. Probably ESTp. This third guy gets blind unconcious rage, ironically, he is not used to being angry, and it's like a switch for him, and he loses control. Probably ISFj

I haven't seen LII get angry. I have seen ESFp interpret the grumbles of LII as rage, but I have not seen objective anger.

SEE himself actively gets pissy over small stupid things, which I or someone else then fixes. Works okay.

As such, my conclusion is if it was related to something, probably Se or Ti. Note that anger does not mean violence, it just means anger, which is a method of acting out on frustration. Anger is a surface emotion, and if you treat the cause at the root, no anger. Learned that from a psych place.

me when on a 6 game losing streak in League, rip keyboard: